• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

i3 6100 not good enough for BF1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good stuff OP.

~>Dg<~ said:
well heres some data to show why.

i3 and i5s and dx12 almost half performance.so basically avoid using dx12 if you want the best performance.quite funny seeing how some were saying dx12 was better for cpu performance and how smooth it is in comparison.

50 percent drop on some card cpus cfgs ! thats some smoothness :p

http://www.techspot.com/review/1267-battlefield-1-benchmarks/page4.html
Click to expand...

Interesting. With a Fury X the averages go up with DX12 but the mins go down. With a 1080 both go down!

I wonder if the fact that Nvidia GPUs have historically been incredibly well optimised for DX11 and terribly optimised for DX12 has anything to do with it. I suspect the AMD case will be improved in drivers, with Nvidia.. not so sure, if the hardware is the issue (is this still the case in Pascal though?).
 
I'm sure nobody really cares any more but for completeness and my own curiosity I tested the 1060 in my 6600k rig, same settings DX11 Ultra 1080p, same Through Mud and Blood campaign benchmark.

All stock settings on CPUs and GPU.

i3 6100 = 71min. 84av. 97max.
i5 6600k = 78min. 91av. 102max.

So not a big improvement really. CPU usage again 90%+. 64p St Quentin Scar slightly lower fps than campaign like before but not much. I think there must be something more to the RX470-i3 6100 combo that we're missing. Would have been interested to see both GPU and CPU usage.

Anyway so long as OP is all sorted now, happy days.
 
Daaaveee said:
I'm sure nobody really cares any more but for completeness and my own curiosity I tested the 1060 in my 6600k rig, same settings DX11 Ultra 1080p, same Through Mud and Blood campaign benchmark.

All stock settings on CPUs and GPU.

i3 6100 = 71min. 84av. 97max.
i5 6600k = 78min. 91av. 102max.

So not a big improvement really. CPU usage again 90%+. 64p St Quentin Scar slightly lower fps than campaign like before but not much. I think there must be something more to the RX470-i3 6100 combo that we're missing. Would have been interested to see both GPU and CPU usage.

Anyway so long as OP is all sorted now, happy days.
Click to expand...


I'd like to see a 6700k now ...get testing ! :p
 
Moral of the story why move to quad core when dually is fine with HT enabled. Because it's fine in BF1 no need for i5 especially with DX12 on the horizon and the move to more cores/threads.

I noticed nice improvements in odd games from the move from a 4.2Ghz i5 to a 4.6Ghz i7.
 
Daaaveee said:
I'm sure nobody really cares any more but for completeness and my own curiosity I tested the 1060 in my 6600k rig, same settings DX11 Ultra 1080p, same Through Mud and Blood campaign benchmark.

All stock settings on CPUs and GPU.

i3 6100 = 71min. 84av. 97max.
i5 6600k = 78min. 91av. 102max.

So not a big improvement really. CPU usage again 90%+. 64p St Quentin Scar slightly lower fps than campaign like before but not much. I think there must be something more to the RX470-i3 6100 combo that we're missing. Would have been interested to see both GPU and CPU usage.

Anyway so long as OP is all sorted now, happy days.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure your findings are correct. Historically I've always bought overkill products but in the last few years I've dabbled with cheaper CPUs etc as an experiment to see how much difference would it really make?

I bought this i3 6100 as a stop gap as I honestly feel that the large majority of games are GPU bound. With any luck the i7 8700K will run on a Z170 motherboard so I will upgrade to that in the future.
 
One thing I'm noticing with my 6600k is that it's never going to 3.9Ghz, only seems to go t o 3.7Ghz. Could this be because my motherboard doesn't support the turbo boost or something
 
Edit, I'm too slow.... ^^^^^

Drake5 said:
One thing I'm noticing with my 6600k is that it's never going to 3.9Ghz, only seems to go t o 3.7Ghz. Could this be because my motherboard doesn't support the turbo boost or something
Click to expand...

It will only boost to 3.9 on one core...

fgjh.jpg
 
I Have an i3, on a MSI B150M BAZOOKA with a GTX 1070, to say this is not a gaming CPU is not accurate information, not all games are the same, there are many games where the difference between FPS over the i3, i5, and i7 are very close, and an i3 on a Z170 with DDR4 2666 ram over 2133 even closer in most games, even games like GTA5 and Witcher to name but a few.

I dont have the newest battlefield, so i wont comment, but when BF4 came out it was very much like you described no matter what hardware you had, and i suspect that might be the case again, followed by poor drivers

Anyway glad your upgrade solved you problem, enjoy the game.

But dont be fooled in to thinking it was the i3 that was the problem, when in fact it was the combination of the three, GPU and CPU and GAME, might have sorted its self out with game and driver updates if BF4 was anything to go by :)
 
Well, the OP's problem seems to have gone away, just as mine did when I moved from an Intel dual core based system to an AMD quad.
 
jigger said:
Well, the OP's problem seems to have gone away, just as mine did when I moved from an Intel dual core based system to an AMD quad.
Click to expand...

lol Intel i3 destroys your chip, plenty of benchmarks showing it. If you're talking Pentium then yes the AMD will be better, slightly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom